A footballers life with lotsa money, lotsa time on his hands and a pretty skewed experience of life would probably contribute to upper thigh grabbing behaviour.

Click to expand...

That's a fair point, and there's no research (to my knowledge) that's been done for this small subsection of the population.

Anecdotally, it does seem that current players are being charged with offences such as DV and sexual assault more regularly than their retired counterparts. But the retirees have a monopoly on being charged with trafficking offences and homicide.

There are plenty of jobs requiring both of those things that you can do if you have a DUI.

Either way, quite clearly people are excluded from those roles due to convictions because they are considered a danger to people during the course of their job e.g. children in the case of teachers.

So banning sports players for a single criminal conviction would not be to protect anyone and would be a moralistic stance, one that goes beyond the judicial punishments.

Click to expand...

It would be a moralistic stance, you are right. But what’s wrong with that?
The NRL is a business that relies on sponsorship, media attention and viewers to survive. If there is someone within their business that threatens that survival they are within their rights to exclude them from their business.

There are too many bad news stories coming from the world of Rugby League, and enough is enough. Some people may not believe it hurts the bottom line, but I’m not one of those people.
People can blame the media all they want for only reporting on the bad stories, but if there’s none to report they would have to focus on the actual game for once.

One is showing what is and isn't acceptable within the context of actions on the field.

The other is charged by some on here with showing what is and isn't acceptable in society and being the ethics police which is not their job IMO.

They are completely separate issues.

Click to expand...

The NRL is allowed to judge what is acceptable for people who are employed by them. These are public figures and the NRL is a very public business. Should they not be able to choose who they have represent their game in the public eye?

The NRL is allowed to judge what is acceptable for people who are employed by them. These are public figures and the NRL is a very public business. Should they not be able to choose who they have represent their game in the public eye?

I'd say that a significant proportion of professional athletes are wankers; it just comes with the territory.
They've been dealt the genetic royal flush of excelling in a field that is borderline deified and it inevitably goes to their heads - it'd be hard for it not to.
Additionally, it requires a certain level of chutzpah to back yourself when the stakes are high.
The difference is that the smarter ones know when to reign the ego in and, you know, not rape women or bash random Uber drivers or drink-drive mere hours after being awarded the Australian captaincy; the dumb ones don't.
Hubris combined with stupidity is the problem.

MCK would be the last footballer I would have picked to get into a Uber driver. The guy is red hot with his religion and by all accounts a really nice kid. Sadly he probably has two drinking sessions a year. Anyway absolutely no excuse to belt anyone, but I hope there is a roads back at some stage if he is proven guilty of the charges

They all sign a standard NRL contract, don’t they?
They aren’t employed by the club (as a player at least) until the NRL ratifies their contract.
The NRL has the power to decide who gets to play in their league and who doesn’t.

They all sign a standard NRL contract, don’t they?
They aren’t employed by the club (as a player at least) until the NRL ratifies their contract.
The NRL has the power to decide who gets to play in their league and who doesn’t.

It would be a moralistic stance, you are right. But what’s wrong with that?
The NRL is a business that relies on sponsorship, media attention and viewers to survive. If there is someone within their business that threatens that survival they are within their rights to exclude them from their business.

There are too many bad news stories coming from the world of Rugby League, and enough is enough. Some people may not believe it hurts the bottom line, but I’m not one of those people.
People can blame the media all they want for only reporting on the bad stories, but if there’s none to report they would have to focus on the actual game for once.

Click to expand...

The problem with it being a moralistic stance is it isn't up to the NRL to tell me, you or anyone else what is and isn't appropriate in society. Keep in mind I am not necessarily referring to serious crimes which any reasonable person would consider as ethically wrong. Some people may think any DUI is cause for a lengthy ban, some may not, some people may think players deserve a 2nd chance after assault or DV issues especially first offenders who are young, some may not. So it then becomes a debate of severity and we will never get agreement on that.

The NRL (and any other business) absolutely has the right to refuse to employ people it thinks will damage their image. Ignoring the fact the NRL doesn't actually employ the players for a second, commercial considerations cause another issue here because what happens when not hiring or continue to a hire an employee/player is actually worse commercially for the NRL or club. As a random example using 2 players from my club, I can promise you that the roosters/NRL would have no problem taking a moralistic and harsh stance against say Lindsay Collins but I can promise you James Tedesco wouldn't cop the same treatment as he is too valuable so yes they can make a decision to not hire based on commercial impact but with that naturally comes inconsistency and double standards as not everyone is equal to the club/NRL so quite clearly blanket bans aren't viable.

In some sports the governing body of sport are a party to the contract so they can be involved. Say in the unlikely event a club goes bust, the league takes on responsibilty for the contract and payment. Etc etc etc